Please do not see this as Deep Criticism of you position. Same for Ben. You have set up the examples beautifully. Therein lies the problem.
The question becomes, upon examination of this Passive Voice observation, "Where did Mark get these verses?" Not that it necessarily came directly from his thoughts but, "If Q then why not Mark as well?" Perhaps Mark obtained his Story from the same Sources as Matthew and Luke which would make this "Expanded Q" unnecessary.
This is perhaps true but also, in light of a "Q", demands an Analysis of "Why was Mark found wanting, given the extra material that has been produced?" Note that this is not a Psychological Demand to get into some Ancient's head. See just below.Someone reads Mark and produces the following sayings to augment the dialog of Mark: (a', b', c', d', e')
Manifestly they are NOT the same thing:Now, you are claiming that there is a difference between (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) + (a', b', c', d', e') and (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g).
I'm saying there is no difference. Those two are the same thing.
Mark 4: 38 - 40 (RSV):
 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?"
 And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?"
Matthew 8: 24 - 26 (RSV):
 And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep.
 And they went and woke him, saying, "Save, Lord; we are perishing."
 And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O men of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
If this exhibits "a" in Mark, it is a real stretch to say that Matthew's is "a' ", despite the paraphrasing. Matthew is HIDING MEANING. Matthew could have quoted Mark completely given the paraphrasing that he does in verse 26. He did not do so. Why not? Beyond that, what of Mark? Why would Mark have to be corrected for a purely Literary Story, if that is what it is? Why were Matthew and Luke obligated? "What was Mark paraphrasing"?
That is what we don't know (Ignoring the hubbub over the ending of Mark). We don't know that Mark existed in a longer version. UNLESS:You keep talking about how Luke or Matthew must know Mark. Of course. Mark exists in the longer version. If Mark is the set of (a-g) then that set exists in (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g). Everything is there that is needed to derive both Matthew and Luke.
That Document, (which would also probably have to include the Book of John...) would then not be Mark. Or Proto-Mark. Or Ur-Mark. Or Mark + Q. Or Q.All of Mark exists and all of Q exists together in a single document.
From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from "Source Stories", it does not follow that the "Source Stories" were about "Jesus".
Agreed, except for the part where you might call it a Gospel. I prefer to call it a "Document brought to Rome after the Fall of Jerusalem".And I'm saying that that proposition ISN'T "Q theory". That proposition is "Matthew and Luke copied from a longer Gospel", whatever you want to call that.
Agreed. Here is where you get back on track. Matthew's is a different Gospel from Mark. Matthew hides things. Luke is a different Gospel from Matthew. Luke knows things - "Anna the Prophetess" in Luke 2 appears to be a Cipher for Queen Salome, for example. Luke knows but also hides.You're basically saying that if you take a new Gospel derived from Mark and separate the new material from the old, then you arrive at a potential Q source. I'm saying you don't. A new Gospel derived from Mark is still a new Gospel, whether you break the material up into two parts or not.
"...and what about John?"
If Mark was simply "OK" there would be no need for a Matthew or a Luke or most certainly a John. Since there were reasons for the other Gospels, there could possibly be reasons for "Q". Let's, however, be honest: Mark may have chosen his material from an extended Q. Q may have come after Mark. Q as a Subset of material from only Matthew and Luke seems entirely too restrictive.